Jump to content

Turbotrio

Members
  • Posts

    1,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Turbotrio

  1. I skip the middle range and go wide (I use the Tokina 16-28/2.8 on full-frame) or then long with the 200/2. Those are my two favorite ATM. If I was shooting at the track I would bring along the 70-200/2.8 for sure. I will be shooting Mark's car at Norwalk this weekend and will be using those three 99% of the time.

     

    Oh, and my answer varies a little depending on if you are talking about a "Shoot" Vs track-side shooting. For a planned shoot I would get lighting and a Rig first. For track-side shooting the 70-200/2.8 is what I would add first.

    Jeff

  2. Beautiful pics. You can see Mt. LeConte from Clingman's Dome. I HIGHLY recommend hiking all the way to the top. It's far to late for you to book a night, but look into it.

     

    We hiked alongside a gentlemen a few years ago that was on his way up to Mt. LeConte. Our trail ended about 5 miles in but since he had reservations that day he and his son went the rest of the way up. He had gone 27 years in a row and told us all kinds of cool stories.

     

    Once the kids are a little older I look forward to seeing it in person.

    Jeff

  3. Nice shots-

     

    When were you there? We were up there the second of May... Unbelievable the temperature drop at the top. We did it with a 5 and 2 year old and the 2 year old was less than thrilled ;)

     

    We were there the first weekend in April. It was in the high 20's that morning with crazy wind. I left the camera on the tripod and jumped in and out of the car to warm up.

     

    Thanks everyone!

    Jeff

  4. Nice job. #5 is my favorite.

     

    Thanks! I drove by that standing water and with the sun where it was pulling off a good reflection wasn't quite as easy as I was hoping. Shooting though the weeds was the only option for this one.

    Jeff

  5. Had an hour to "Drive around" yesterday late afternoon so I brought the camera along. Stopped by a few places that caught my eye from the road and snapped a few pics. Black car in direct sunlight was far from ideal but oh well:

     

    13917204360_422629ee96_b.jpgJMY_7792 by JMYphotography, on Flickr

     

    14104224014_dd70fd45e9_b.jpgJMY_7751 by JMYphotography, on Flickr

     

    14120551093_e287426466_b.jpgJMY_7807 by JMYphotography, on Flickr

     

    13921329799_2fc1f7eea8_b.jpgJMY_7671-2 by JMYphotography, on Flickr

     

    13917215458_14a7c623e0_b.jpgJMY_7699 by JMYphotography, on Flickr

     

    14097374292_508f6c6d14_b.jpgJMY_7842-2 by JMYphotography, on Flickr

     

    Taking a break from posing before heading back home:

     

    14120550583_e44cc24624_b.jpgJMY_7815 by JMYphotography, on Flickr

  6. Thanks, do you have any tips on children? Low light / fast moving objects I just cant figure it out.. Its always blurry it seems.

     

    My camera isn't fast (FPS) but it is great in low-light (IE: Inside the house). My favs of my kids are always of the non "Staged" variety. Get down at their level and let them play and catch natural laughs / smiles / etc. I love shooting at f/1.4 -2.0 (Depending on the lens) but with that shallow depth-of-field there are far more misses than hits :)

    Jeff

  7. Figured since this thread is dying, I would add a few of my recent photos.

     

    I dont have much free time to take photos anymore, so I've been learning how to take photos of my son who runs 100mph.

    [/url]

     

    Same here. The vast majority of what I shoot now-a-days is my kids and/or their friends.

    Nice pics!

    Jeff

  8. I'm still very much of the opinion that his "Soft" isn't talking about actual sharpness. Even a full page lay-out in a magazine is small enough for it to not matter unless something was REALLY out of focus.

     

    I have never seen this magazine before but maybe see if you can look at the back-issue pics online and get an idea of what he is used to seeing?

     

    If you haven't, look at threads like this to get ideas on how far you can go with just the processing side of things:

     

    http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1007907

  9. Well since the editor hated these and said they were all "soft" I uploaded them all. I sent him the raw images that were not edited, all of these were touched up in light room.

     

    I talked with another editor about my pictures and he saw nothing wrong with my work. He thinks that the "soft" reference is that my stuff does not look sharp enough.

     

    I personally don't see them as "Soft" but to be honest in this size on the web you would have to be noticeably out of focus for that to jump out IMO.

     

    From a framing stand-point the first image you posted jumps out as being way too tight (Crop) with nothing helping it at all in the back-ground. Obviously you want the back-ground blurred but if you look at the pics in the "Rig" link I posted it always adds to it if you can get a sun-flare or lights or something that just makes the image "Pop" a bit more. With so many rolling shots done on rigs now, I think your higher angle and tighter crop make it look a little odd as compared to a low and wide-angle rig shot "Look" that is such the norm now.

     

    To do this type of shot w/o a rig IMO you need a golf cart, a wide-angle lens, a slow shutter speed, and as good a background as possible. You don't have to go fast at all to get the sense of motion (Technically speaking if you are good at PS you can make the car look like its moving while sitting 100% still) but it's more of the wide-angle "Look" that I typically see a lot.

    Jeff

     

    Disclaimer: This is based around submitting them to a magazine and not what would pass as being perfectly fine for many other purposes.

  10. Agreed, every "rolling" shot of my car has been done with a rig.

     

    How much did you pay for yours (Pics)? If you don't want to say shoot me a PM.

     

    Most decent kits are minimally a grand and even though I could see it lasting forever I am not convinced that there is enough of a market to justify the cost. The results look great though so I dunno. Been kicking it around for awhile.

    Jeff

  11. I don't like this pic because you can't see the entire tach sweep (I had to take it a weird angle because I was trying to do this in 5 minutes and my two kids seats made me getting in the back-seat impossible) but I was thinking something darker like this for an interior shot:

     

    13368160365_a3aff65bf4_b.jpg

     

    No flash. ISO 100 and a few second exposure. I just lifted the garage door up half-way to get a little light in (Otherwise garage dark).

    Jeff

  12. I have done this before for some of my cars. It's quite a production since it needs a minimum of two cars and three people. Then there is the coordinating, speed regulation, and a slew of other things requiring perfect timing and communication. At one time several years ago, the in-motion photography was performed on 3 cars (all carriage forms of teknoviolett 1998 E36 M3), so there were 4 cars and 5 people on radios. It took a couple laps of I-270 in order to take a perfect shot of multiple poses.

     

    Or you can just buy a rig and let them roll a few feet and get the same / better results :)

     

    I am still on the fence about purchasing a kit but they certainly make life easier as explained above.

    Jeff

     

    PS -- For those not familiar: http://www.slrlounge.com/long-exposure-auto-photography-using-rig

×
×
  • Create New...